4 ms·

That’s the point. They’re making money from side channels. The idea is that if you pay them $1M, they won’t do their side channel earnings (and therefore reduc

That’s the point. They’re making money from side channels. The idea is that if you pay them $1M, they won’t do their side channel earnings (and therefore reduce their potential conflicts of interest)

verzali 1y ago
Trump has far more than that, but he still seems willing to abuse the office to make himself even richer.
scoofy 1y ago
This idea seems straightforward me, but I'm a huge nerd, and every time I try to explain it to normal people they're so offended by the idea that they talk to me like I'm crazy.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  Do you notice a trend of rich people becoming disinterested in amassing further riches? They just hire someone to do their trading for them and buy an island to go along with their yacht.
kcplate 1y ago
Why do you assume they would stop gathering money from side channels? You would need to tie the increase to a prohibition against side/back channel money. Both seems highly unlikely to me.
- digitalPhonix 1y ago
  If you pay them 170k salary, then a 50k donation/bribe/dinner is very lucrative. If you pay them $1M salary, then a 50k donation/bribe/dinner is less convincing. This isn’t going to stop it, but perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of better.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    Then the bribe will increase to 300,000 and we're back to square one but with more inflation. Just to use the same argument they would have against raising minimum wage...
    - digitalPhonix 1y ago
      > This isn’t going to stop it, but perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of better. There are less "causes" that have the ability to fund a $300k bribe so even with that argument, we're still better off. (And it costs those causes more, bigger paper trails etc.)
      - lores 1y ago
        The pettiness of bribes has always surprised me. 3K, 5K, that kind of money. A few thousand dollars is all it takes to buy a senator, and they are largely already multi-millionaires. Raising their salary won't help, because, just like Trump cheating suppliers, there's no way the issue is money.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    I think there are a couple flaws in your logic. One, $50k is $50k and spends the same whether you make $174k or $1M. It’s money you didn’t have and now you do and if it’s completely legal to receive it, why wouldn’t you take it? I would at either level of salary if it was legal and was an interest I wasn’t morally opposed to. Generally donations to garnish support will be for things that are not going to go directly against the politician’s morals—assuming they have morals.. If they are willing to take the donations and entertain special interest money, they are willing to take it despite their income high or low. Another is assuming that the price to buy support is fixed and the coffers are limited. The price might be $50k because perhaps that is the sweet spot on your target, but support and donations will go higher if needed and the special interest is motivated to garner support.

verzali 1y ago

Trump has far more than that, but he still seems willing to abuse the office to make himself even richer.

scoofy 1y ago

This idea seems straightforward me, but I'm a huge nerd, and every time I try to explain it to normal people they're so offended by the idea that they talk to me like I'm crazy.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
Do you notice a trend of rich people becoming disinterested in amassing further riches? They just hire someone to do their trading for them and buy an island to go along with their yacht.

kcplate 1y ago

Why do you assume they would stop gathering money from side channels? You would need to tie the increase to a prohibition against side/back channel money. Both seems highly unlikely to me.

digitalPhonix 1y ago
If you pay them 170k salary, then a 50k donation/bribe/dinner is very lucrative. If you pay them $1M salary, then a 50k donation/bribe/dinner is less convincing. This isn’t going to stop it, but perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of better.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  Then the bribe will increase to 300,000 and we're back to square one but with more inflation. Just to use the same argument they would have against raising minimum wage...
  - digitalPhonix 1y ago
    > This isn’t going to stop it, but perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of better. There are less "causes" that have the ability to fund a $300k bribe so even with that argument, we're still better off. (And it costs those causes more, bigger paper trails etc.)
    - lores 1y ago
      The pettiness of bribes has always surprised me. 3K, 5K, that kind of money. A few thousand dollars is all it takes to buy a senator, and they are largely already multi-millionaires. Raising their salary won't help, because, just like Trump cheating suppliers, there's no way the issue is money.
- kcplate 1y ago
  I think there are a couple flaws in your logic. One, $50k is $50k and spends the same whether you make $174k or $1M. It’s money you didn’t have and now you do and if it’s completely legal to receive it, why wouldn’t you take it? I would at either level of salary if it was legal and was an interest I wasn’t morally opposed to. Generally donations to garnish support will be for things that are not going to go directly against the politician’s morals—assuming they have morals.. If they are willing to take the donations and entertain special interest money, they are willing to take it despite their income high or low. Another is assuming that the price to buy support is fixed and the coffers are limited. The price might be $50k because perhaps that is the sweet spot on your target, but support and donations will go higher if needed and the special interest is motivated to garner support.